If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Obamacare ... the legal stuff

While the author of the article does give his own interpretation, most of the article quotes court written statements. I admit, I had to read the legalese twice to grasp what the court was saying.

As we all know there is a "tax" assessed for employers failing to meet the mandates of the ACA. There is also a "tax" for individuals. You can't go to the court to get relief from the tax ... but these plaintiffs are in court contending that the credits for individuals (the subsidies that will be offered to individuals in the state exchanges) are not legal.

There is also the question of whether suits can be heard before an plaintiff actually has been "damaged" by the law. That position also seems to lean in favor of the plaintiffs.

. The relief they seek is to block the illegal tax credits, without which no penalty can be assessed. But even if we pretend (as the government does) that they are trying to block the collection of a tax, the federal district courts for the Eastern District of Oklahoma (Pruitt) and the District of Columbia (Halbig) may now rely on the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Liberty to reject the argument that the AIA applies to the employer mandate.

The plaintiff states (the state of OK):

The delay is at least an implicit admission by the federal government that the reporting requirements and other large employer mandate requirements are in fact injuring large employers such as the State.

Whether one supports the ACA or not, one may have to admit that the legal complexities of the law are as convoluted as the law itself.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

The credits are simply a way of imposing a hidden tax on those that are not allowed the credit end of story.
If I have to buy a policy that costs X because of KING JACKASS and it costs me X but someone else gets to pay nothing for the same thing I'm screwed by KING JACKASS.

Writing for the court in Clinton v. City of New York, Justice John Paul Stevens noted: "There is no provision in the [COLOR=#11B000 !important]Constitution[/COLOR] that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."

The House has proposed two separate bills: one to legally delay the employer mandate; and a second one to similarly delay the individual mandate. The WH has stated that Obama will veto BOTH bills.

Why would he veto a bill affirming what he has already done? It appears that he if he did not veto the bill, it would essentially acknowledge that his executive order delaying the employer mandate was not legal.

He would veto the 2nd bill because the program needs the money from either the fines or the premiums of the young & healthy. The WH statement also indicates that approving it might "facilitate" efforts to repeal the law.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

The study's authors — Craig Garthwaite of Northwestern, Matthew Notowidigdo of the University of Chicago, and Tal Gross of Columbia — note that they can apply the lessons from Tennessee to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, because the relevant Medicaid population in Tennessee is similar to the one targeted in the planned Medicaid expansion under the health care overhaul.They predict that 4.2 million low-income people who currently have employer-provided health insurance will take up Medicaid under Obamacare, far more than official projections indicated. The economists also project that between 530,000 and 940,000 individuals will leave employment once they are offered public insurance.

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

My largest health group will be introduced to ACA at their 8/1 renewal. No more age rating for groups, each member will pay the same premium according to the new formula. As expected the youngest members of the group are ready to riot over their 300% premium increase.

I expect all individual health policies to be nonrenewed by the end of 2014 to eliminate the bleeding that will occur with the induvidual mandate begining Oct 2013.

LOL! The IRS employees' union wants to be exempt from Obamacare and keep their coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program ... just like Congress is trying to exempt themselves from Obamacare.

Does it occur to anyone that the more exemptions that take place, the less $ there is to make Obamacare financially sustainable (if there were really any hope of that to begin with)?